MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes ‐ eight hypotheses

2012· review· en· W2167094923 on OpenAlexafffund
Teja Tscharntke, Jason M. Tylianakis, Tatyana A. Rand, Raphaël K. Didham, Lenore Fahrig, Péter Batáry, Janne Bengtsson, Yann Clough, Thomas O. Crist, Carsten F. Dormann, Robert M. Ewers, Jochen Fründ, Robert D. Holt, Andrea Holzschuh, Alexandra‐Maria Klein, David Kleijn, Claire Kremen, Doug Landis, William F. Laurance, David B. Lindenmayer, Christoph Scherber, Navjot S. Sodhi, Ingolf Steffan‐Dewenter, Carsten Thies, Wim H. van der Putten, Catrin Westphal

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersMarsden FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGreat Lakes Bioenergy Research CenterMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungUniversity of Florida FoundationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiodiversityEcologyGeographyHabitat fragmentationEcosystemTraitEnvironmental resource managementBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how landscape characteristics affect biodiversity patterns and ecological processes at local and landscape scales is critical for mitigating effects of global environmental change. In this review, we use knowledge gained from human-modified landscapes to suggest eight hypotheses, which we hope will encourage more systematic research on the role of landscape composition and configuration in determining the structure of ecological communities, ecosystem functioning and services. We organize the eight hypotheses under four overarching themes. Section A: 'landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns' includes (1) the landscape species pool hypothesis-the size of the landscape-wide species pool moderates local (alpha) biodiversity, and (2) the dominance of beta diversity hypothesis-landscape-moderated dissimilarity of local communities determines landscape-wide biodiversity and overrides negative local effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Section B: 'landscape moderation of population dynamics' includes (3) the cross-habitat spillover hypothesis-landscape-moderated spillover of energy, resources and organisms across habitats, including between managed and natural ecosystems, influences landscape-wide community structure and associated processes and (4) the landscape-moderated concentration and dilution hypothesis-spatial and temporal changes in landscape composition can cause transient concentration or dilution of populations with functional consequences. Section C: 'landscape moderation of functional trait selection' includes (5) the landscape-moderated functional trait selection hypothesis-landscape moderation of species trait selection shapes the functional role and trajectory of community assembly, and (6) the landscape-moderated insurance hypothesis-landscape complexity provides spatial and temporal insurance, i.e. high resilience and stability of ecological processes in changing environments. Section D: 'landscape constraints on conservation management' includes (7) the intermediate landscape-complexity hypothesis-landscape-moderated effectiveness of local conservation management is highest in structurally simple, rather than in cleared (i.e. extremely simplified) or in complex landscapes, and (8) the landscape-moderated biodiversity versus ecosystem service management hypothesis-landscape-moderated biodiversity conservation to optimize functional diversity and related ecosystem services will not protect endangered species. Shifting our research focus from local to landscape-moderated effects on biodiversity will be critical to developing solutions for future biodiversity and ecosystem service management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2,062
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207